A Complex Problem For a Simple President

Is it just me or is any body else worried about North Korea? It reminds me of that really large mosquito that flies around your house dissappearing intermittingly, but long enough that you forget about it until it circles around again. We're mired in Iraq for a reason that still is unrecognizable to most of the world, and now it seems that we don't have a proper solution for NK. Should we invade? Cut of aid? Or ignore it all together and hope that it goes away?

Gib has a fine breakdown of the ideals of the situation here, dealing primarilly with NK's obscene human rights violations that probably make Saddam green with envy. On the flip side Rude Pundit asks us to tread over Kim Jung-Il with a bit more tact:

"Now, Kim Jong-Il's pissant nuke is, among other scarier things, a cry for help. Not just mental health help for a nutzoid dictator of a decimated country, a pathetic monomaniacal boy who is so overcompensating for his lack of stature that he has to show everyone in the area his little missle so we can all be so fucking impressed. No, it's also a cry for attention. And, like a toddler holding a butcher knife to his own throat, we probably oughta be gentle and bribe it away from him. Start by, oh, fuck, why not bilateral talks. Just for the fuck of it. Just to see if it works. Then start talkin' the cash money. Naive? Yeah, but the sophistication of bombs and bullying has worked so well in the last few years."

And he's right. The Bush doctrine has failed and it has failed miserably. Neither Iran nor North Korea has been detered in seeking weapons of mass destruction, nor should they be--it's hard for a soverign country to submit to such blatant intimidation by another, especially one that practices such an aggressive foreign policy. Diplomacy still seems to be the key--even if it is "dealing with the devil." Something I'd like to address now.

Look, Cros is right when he says:

"The 23 million North Koreas live in hell on earth. Any promise of security and recognition for Kim Jong-Il will only perpetuate that hell. Any aid we deliver will be used to prop up the regime and is frequently diverted to military uses, and the regime frustrates any effort to monitor aid distribution to ensure that aid is going where it is intended to go - to people starving because of Kim Jong-Il's catastrophic cruelty and incompetence. If we explicitly promise Kim's regime security, and we mean to keep that promise, we are condemning this generation of North Koreans, and the next, and in return are likely recieve only Kim Jong-Il's word, which is of no value. If we break this promise, North Korea will be entitled to its feeling of betrayal."

If you have a heart, you will find yourself sick to your stomach when you review his links, which are, to say the least, disturbing. And yet to ensure the safety of this country and our allies, one is forced to make deals that are morally repungnent. We're allies and even trade partners with China, which isn't exactly a beacon of liberity and civil rights. We're allied with Russia who's not a bastion of freedom, and let's not forget that we allowed Pakistan to get nukes, and their PM is a military despot. If we run around only dealing with "Popes, and Saints" we'd find ourselves in lonely company indeed. In fact, you (and I mean you personally) might be the only one sitting in the General Assembly.

And let's get another thing clear. If you think that "humanitarian aid" goes to the poor you're delusional. In some sectors aid is mismanaged through ignorant but good meaning politicians and philanthropists who just don't know the best way to help an impoverished population. But many times aid, especially aid given by governments, is a pay off to greedy dictators and military operators. What is it a pay off for? It's a pay off to protect the government's interests. We've seen this when we funded Saddam in their battle against Iran, or when we backed Bin Laden when he was fighting against the Soviets, and in the whole Iran-Contra affair.

This is a complex issue, but, unfortunately, we have a simple President. His policy of preemptive attack, underestimating his opponents, and turning a deaf ear to his own military, advisors, and critics show that he is incapable of dealing with this issue. We have to sit at the table with NK and Iran, and work out options, increased aid, perhaps even bribes, to maintain a stable peace, while at the same time working out trade agreements that will encourage coorporation between these counties and the West. Let us not forget that while China has a long way to go, it is because of Nixon asking to deal with the Chinese, in a peaceful, mutually benificial format, that has allowed a more progressive and liberal (oooh nasty word!) government to form. To deny the opportunity to form this same bond with the Middle East (read Iran) and North Korea, is imprudent policy and the short road to oblivion.